Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?
 

Pick any historic event in baseball history... Babe Ruth's called shot, Jackie Robinson's first day in the Major Leagues, Mazeroski's home run, etc. Now, which is more desirable and why: an original negative that shot the event, or a Type 1 photo of the same event. I can think of a few arguments for both. Discuss :) .

This list may help:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...eague-baseball

Cool question, Andrew. I guess my biggest concern would be, is it for display purposes, or moreso owning a piece of such historical significance? If the it's the former, then I think a photo is gonna win out 9 out of 10 times.

I've always felt that the greatest image of a historic baseball event doesn't capture the event directly. I'm referring to George Silk's image of the 1960 World Series for LIFE (disclosure: I own it). What photographer would leave the stadium for a shot of the final inning of the World Series? Silk missed Mazeroski's home run, but got something much better. I think it's one of the greatest baseball images ever taken.

As to your question, while the negative was "there" at the event, there are only a handful of negatives that would sell for more than a vintage print--I'm thinking of Nat Fein's negative of 'Three Bows Out' and Conlon's negative of Ty Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin.

https://goo.gl/images/48bZiD

Here is the image

I'm neither a photograph nor a negative collector, but I'll take an odd approach and say what immediately jumps out at me. The negative was in the camera and the image it contains was created as the historical event happened. It was there, an actual witness to the event. The photograph itself was printed elsewhere (I assume) and, literally speaking, has no true attachment to the occurrence itself. So, give me the negative.

I think the negative would be the most historical item as it captured the actual event. The photo would be the best display of that historic event, but once removed from the event.

Rob M.

Always felt this was a phenomenal shot.

OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?

A strong no. Owning the negatives or transparencies in and of themselves does not give you any copyright. If you took them yourself you would own the rights unless you sold them. If you purchased negatives or transparencies from the person or entity that owned the rights and they signed them over to you you would own the rights. Otherwise they would be retained either by the photographer or the entity that owned the rights. A general rule for copyright is that the copyright is retained for 85 years after the image could have first appeared in a publication. This is not hard and fast, but it gives you an idea what you are working with. The copyright can be renewed, but with many photos it is not done. The estate of an individual or photographer can still control images of that person or photographer. This can be seen with the photographs taken by Ansel Adams, being controlled by one entity. There is also an opposite to this. One of the 500 lb. gorillas, Getty Images, tries to claim copyright over images where they have not acquired rights and sell them as if they do. The 85 years applies within the U.S. The copyright period in Europe is much shorter. I believe it is 65 years. Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team. The next time you see a pro athlete in an ad on t.v. pay attention to the uniforms. You will see a lot of commercials with generic uniforms with similar colors to the pro uniform, but no real logos. I will not even go into orphan images, of which I own more than a few.

I personally would prefer the negative. I could still make a print for my own personal use in the size that I would like to have for display.

Great question Andrew.

I only have a handful of negatives (the 1904 Pirates Opening Day flag raising and game http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=1904) and am still pretty new to photos. I have to say that I definitely prefer the Type 1 photos. I don't really know what to do with the negatives that I have but I really enjoy looking at my photos. Sure, the Type 1 wasn't actually at the game, but it is still a part of history as it brought that historic moment to the millions of people who listened to, watched, or read about the game that just took place. I have never developed a photo, but I believe there is also some skill involved in that part of the process, which makes Type 1s the fullest expression of the photographer's intentions (assuming the photographers developed their own photos) and therefore a small step beyond the composition of the shot and the camera operation involved in recording the image on the negative.

Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?
 

Not to mention you would ALSO need some form of agreement with any players depicted in said image, or their estates, before selling prints in quantity. Everybody has to get their cut or you’re opening yourself up to trouble.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that's a difficult choice.

I'm pretty much agreed with almost everyone else. I'd like the negative as a piece of history. And I could always make a print or two for personal use. (Not sure just what I'd do if I got a really important image, that might be worth trying to get rights to. )

But yes, a negative is really hard to display, so if that's what I wanted, I'd have to go with the photo.


Steve B

Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

The photo.

I think this is a poor analogy. You are talking about the tool versus the final product which is not the same for photography. The camera is the tool. Using your parameters, try one of these:

Would you rather have Conlon's, Bain's, Eisenstadt's or Adams' camera or an original print they created in the darkroom?

Would you rather have the artist sketch for a painting or the painting or perhaps would you rather have Rodin's original plasters for 'The Thinker' or one of the 5 original bronzes where he oversaw the casting?

Is the paintbrush authenticated? :eek: